Annoying middle aged rock snobs

Thanks, Moose, for this recommendation. If this doesn’t make 100 responses I’ll be gutted.

I am an inveterate ‘deconstructor’ of rock snobs. In the punk years I would be pogoing at punk gigs in a dog-chewed t-shirt, flares, and centre-parted shoulder length hair then off to see Genesis (post Hackett) the next week. My main objection was peers who repeated received NME wisdom with flagrant insincerity to try and keep in with the genuinely cool kids.

I recently told someone who only listens to skronky lo-fi out-takes from bands on John peel in his last year that ‘I like marillion, but only their later stuff’.

I often use the Partridge inversion (as in ‘Gallagher and lyle- the singer-song writers Simon and garfunkel COULD have been”).

I am utterly sincere in the music I like, and genuinely like Al sorts (I probably mostly listen to 60s r’n’b and jazz theses days), and am all for pretentiousness (if one doesn’t reach higher, how can one reach in the first place?), but I hate the humourless rock list model. Isn’t it obvious that The Rezillos are better than the MC5?

Is the thread about annoying middle-aged rock snobs in themselves…or the act of annoying middle-aged rock snobs? By asking the question I think I have turned the trick of making everyone cross and tired.

I think I can be both things – entertaining as it is to dismiss Pink Floyd as “one hit wonders” and “no better than the Goombay Dance Band” to over-earnest Floydsters in the past, I am more respectful these days and genuinely respect and admire musical devotion in general. I am not going to have my prog ear-hymen(s) (?) pierced any time soon, but I have warmed to it and those who sail in it. If the Afterword has taught me anything – then it is that we are all on the same side.

When I was young, I attempted to impose my taste in music on others and was mightily aggrieved when they took no notice. By middle age, I couldn’t care less what other people liked, even if it was Abba and ELO.

Cornwall has the highest internet speeds of anywhere in Britain – someone told me why, something to do with cables coming in from America or something. Coming from rural France to Cornwall for a holiday was like stepping into a brave new world where instead of tapping a button and waiting for your computer to whirr and whizz before replying “Nah, not today” you were watching movies on YouTube, downloading porn by accident (honest guv) and generally joining the 21st Century.

Tacitus was a Roman historian who referred to Jesus in about 60AD and his crucifixion under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, bearing in mind Jesus died around 35AD. Pliny The Younger was a Roman Governor who wrote to The Emperer Trajan 112AD asking advice on how to deal with Christians dedicated to Jesus. The Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Rabbi writings compiled from before 70AD, refers to Jesus and his death close to Passover. Then, there was Lucian, a Greek satirist at the turn of the first century, who jested about Christians and their founder. Plus, of course, Josephus.

While I would accept that this is is the best we could hope for from this time (and, on balance, persuasive), is there not the circular logic of “print the legend” to some of these?
Also, 25years really is a generation when people aren’t living so long (apart from the ones coming back from the dead)..

Possibly. But these sources are not ‘Christian’ with no axe to grind, as it were.

There is far less evidence that King Arthur existed, a ‘legend’ if ever there was one. He was born half a century after Christ and the first document referring to him dates from three or four hundred years after his death. If he existed at all. 😉

Historia Brittonum from 829, lists twelve battles fought by Arthur and gives him the title of dux bellorum, which can be translated as ‘war commander’. The Annales Cambriae (the earliest version of which was composed in the mid-10th century) give the date of Arthur’s death as 537 at the Battle of Camlann. All other sources relating to Arthur by name are later than these; that is, they were written at least four hundred years later than the events to which they refer. He was first referred to as a king in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s chronicle, Historia Regum Britanniae, written in 1129, but Geoffrey’s work is widely regarded as fiction.

Well some scattered comments 25-30 years after someone has supposed to have died is not exactly meticulous “record keeping”.

But let’s imagine there was some record and, using a more modern idiom, it said something like this:

“There was this guy going among the Jews. Claimed he was God or the ‘son of God’ or some weird shit like that (as if there’s only one god). Causing a bit of a commotion. So we clipped him, in the usual manner. Couldn’t have something like that stirring up the colony.”

Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if there were several cases like this for the Romans to deal with. It’s a long way, however, from such an account to the narrative of a guy, born of a virgin, who walked on the water and rose from the dead, all as part of a supposed biography.

But let’s not lose sight of the greater good here. We’re helping Vincent get to his century.

I’m talking about the Jesus described in the gospels. All of the most crucial attributions there, such as virgin birth, walking on the water and rising from the dead are accretions from from ancient mythologies. I’m talking about the Jesus described in the gospels and this is the one that Christians believe in.

We’ve come too far from my initial throwaway comment to your claim about Roman record-keeping (now abandoned) via King Arthur to a dogmatic conclusion in your last message. Signs to me that you’re getting a bit po-faced about this topic, and, seeing as I’ve got nothing at all against you or any Christians present, I respectfully withdraw at this point.

I really enjoyed A.N. Wilson’s book Jesus: A Life on this subject. An easy but very interesting read, written while the author was on a break from being a believer on account of being unable to reconcile the historical Jesus with the biblical one. (He’s since gone back to believing again, the silly billy).
Some of the most interesting bits were where Wilson points out things from the biblical account that are likely to be true as there would have been no other reason to include them (and in some cases, not including them would have been more in keeping with the Bible’s message and aims). I read it many years ago now and unfortunately can’t remember specific examples.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I took your interesting questions on face value and responded in the wider interest of a thread hoping to hit a century. I did not intend to be po-faced. I do find historical evidence fascinating, especially when it’s thousands of years old.

Frankly, I feel let down by the Romans but, having looked into it a little, I am sure a Jesus of Nazareth did exist & was crucified under Pilate. I certainly don’t believe in him as the Son of God myself. This is an issue of *faith*. Believers are believers despite a lack of robust evidence. I’ll hazard a guess that more Afterworders believe in Arthur than Jesus but I may be wrong.

The two elements A.N.Wilson talked about was his baptism & crucifixion. Crucifixion is an ignominious end for the lowest in society. John baptising Jesus places John above a deity. No religion would sensibly include these two elements in their Lord’s story, let alone give them such prominence.

Isn’t being baptised by John just born-in-a-barn guy once more demonstrating his humility thereby distinguishing himself from the usual “I am the greatest” deities (like his old man) and consequently bang on message..?
101!

The story goes that when Jesus offered himself for baptism, John immediately knew that Jesus was the son of God and expressed reluctance to do it – he said that the scenario should surely be the other way around.

“Yes! Even someone as perfect as Me needs to be baptised! I am the Son of God and John’s baptism service here is second-to-none!” he said to the crowd.

Sounds like a bit of a scam to me. This bit of theatre would have had hundreds of mugs lining up for baptisms in return for a small fee, and Jesus would have got his cut – don’t you worry about that.

Uriah Heep are the most important band of the last 50 years.
In that time they have invented every major musical movement.
The failure of the albums “Easy F**king Living’ and ‘Geezers and Wizards’ prevented them being recognised as forefathers of the Punk and Britpop movements.
They also seem to have upset every journalist and musician as no-one mentions their influence anymore (or indeed, ever).

No fool like an old fool!
The Mods wouldn’t give you the steam off their piss without a sizeable cash donation. How else do you think they afford the Champers, Armagnac, Paté etc?
H.P.Saucecraft is actually Mark Zuckerberg’s AW alias, incidentally. Don’t tell anyone I told you.